The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Preliminary matters At all times material hereto, Respondent, Juan Rodriguez, was licensed by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Department), as a certified general contractor, having been issued license number CG C005171. Respondent was licensed as an individual and not as the qualifying agent of any corporation or other business organization. At all times material hereto, Henry Pena was the sole officer and director of U.S.A. Henry Roofing Corp., a Florida corporation. Neither Henry Pena nor U.S.A. Henry Roofing Corp. (hereinafter jointly referred to as "Pena"), were registered, certified, or otherwise qualified under the provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, to engage in contracting in the State of Florida. Respondent was clearly aware of Pena's lack of licensure.1 The Zapata job Pertinent to this case, Oscar and Consuelo Zapata owned a one-story commercial building located at 59 Beacom Boulevard, Miami, Florida. On August 1, 1996,2 Mr. Pena, on behalf of U.S.A. Henry Roofing Corp., and Mr. Zapata entered into an agreement whereby U.S.A. Henry Roofing Corp. would replace the roof on the building in exchange for an agreed price of $18,200. A first payment of $8,000 was to be paid after the first inspection, and the balance of $10,200 was to be paid following the final inspection. Later in the month of August, Mr. Pena presented a building and zoning permit application, as well as a request for permit, to Mr. Zapata (as owner of the property) for signature. (Petitioner's Exhibit 8.) Following Mr. Zapata's signing, Mr. Pena delivered the forms to Respondent who signed as the contractor. Thereafter, on or about September 3, 1996, Respondent submitted the forms to the City of Miami to obtain a building permit for the re-roofing job. Respondent was not then, nor was he ever, under contract to make improvements to the Zapata property, and his sole involvement was to obtain a permit so Pena could proceed with the job. The permit was issued on or about September 5, 1996.3 On September 17, 1996, Pena began work on the roof, and ceased work the same day when the roof collapsed.4 With the discovery that Pena was not licensed or insured, Mr. Zapata ultimately contracted with another company (that was licensed) to re-roof the building for $16,000. That contract was duly fulfilled, and the re-roofing of the Zapata building was accomplished (notwithstanding the roof collapse) without financial loss to the Zapatas.5 Respondent's lapse of insurance coverage Respondent's liability and property damage insurance policy was terminated June 25, 1996, and was not reinstated until September 19, 1996. Respondent does not dispute the lapse in insurance coverage. (Petitioner's Exhibits 6 and 10, and Transcript, at pages 76-77, and 80-81.) The costs of investigation and prosecution At hearing, the Department offered proof, without objection, that its costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding costs associated with any attorney's time, totalled $306.09, as of January 27, 1999. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7.) Previous disciplinary action On January 18, 1996, the Department entered a final order which found the Respondent guilty of the violations set forth in a two-count Administrative Complaint issued March 25, 1993. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1.) In that complaint, the Department charged (in Count I) that Respondent violated the provisions of Subsection 489.129(1)(e), Florida Statutes, "by performing any act which assists a person or entity in engaging in the prohibited uncertified and unregistered practice of contracting, if the cerfificateholder or registrant knows or has reasonable grounds to know that the person or entity was uncertified and unregistered," and (in Count II) that Respondent violated the provisions of Subsection 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, "by being found guilty of fraud, deceit, or of gross negligence, incompetency, or misconduct in the practice of contracting." Such charges were premised on a renovation contract Respondent held wherein he "subcontracted Nelson Echeverria [who was not a state licensed electrical contractor] to perform electrical work at customer's home for approximately $4,500.00." The final order found Respondent guilty of the charges, and imposed an administrative fine of $1,500 and costs of $1,433.03, to be paid within 30 days. On March 8, 1996, Respondent's license was suspended for failure to satisfy the penalty imposed by the final order; however, the penalty was then apparently satisfied and on June 19, 1996, the suspension was lifted and Respondent's license was reinstated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I through III of the Administrative Complaint and imposing, as a penalty for such violations, an administrative fine in the sum of $5,000; assessing costs of investigation and prosecution in the sum of $306.09; and, suspending Respondent's licensure for a period of one year, followed by a two-year term of probation subject to such reasonable terms and conditions as the Construction Industry Licensing Board may impose. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of May, 1999.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent's certification as an aluminum contractor in Pinellas County should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the matter in issue herein, the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board was the county agency responsible for the regulation of construction industry professionals and contractors operating in Pinellas County, Florida. Respondent was certified as an aluminum contractor and was issued license C-3664. He was, at the time in issue, the qualifying contractor of record for Phoenix Aluminum, Inc. Phoenix Aluminum, Inc. and Ace Aluminum, Inc. are parts of the same entity and are operated by the same individuals. On December 1, 1993, Harvey W. Heimann, the owner of a town house located at 1802 Largo Vista Boulevard, in Largo, Florida, orally agreed with Willard Hill, the reputed representative of Ace Aluminum, to have an aluminum enclosure placed on the rear of his home. Mr. Hill initially had solicited the Heimanns during construction of the home, indicating Ace had done other work in the area. When the parties agreed on a price Mr. Hill indicated that construction would start as soon as the required permit could be obtained, and the job would be completed as soon as possible. No time period for construction was specified. When the job was completed, the Heimanns were not satisfied, feeling the workmanship was poor and the job was esthetically unsatisfactory. They complained numerous times either to Willard Hill or to a Mr. Smart, both reputed to be employees of the company, who promised to come and look the work over. No satisfactory corrections were made by the contractor, however. Nonetheless, an invoice was issued on January 21, 1994 in the amount of $1,720.00, and the Heimanns paid Ace Aluminum the sum of $1,360.00 by check on April 23, 1994, after some corrective work was accomplished. This check was subsequently endorsed and paid to Ace. In November 1995 a strong wind hit the Largo area during which some of the roof panels on the Heimanns' aluminum room installed by Ace/Phoenix blew off. Mrs. Heimann subsequently spoke by telephone with someone at the company office but got no satisfaction, and in February, contacted another aluminum contractor, Mr. Howe, to give them an estimate to repair the damage. When Mr. Howe found out that the installation was so recent, he refused to do any corrective work on it until he determined if the work had been both permitted and finally inspected. He found that a permit had been pulled for the installation. He then advised the owners to contact the original installer. The Heimanns wanted nothing more to do with Ace/Phoenix and on April 5, 1996, Mr. Howe pulled a permit to do the necessary work. The work, which also required the replacement of the screws affixing the base aluminum to the concrete with larger screws and a deeper insertion into the concrete, was completed by April 10, 1996, after which Howe arranged for the job to be properly inspected. The work Howe did passed inspection. According to David Livesay, the chief building inspector for Pinellas County, a permit for the project in issue was pulled by Willard Hill on December 9, 1993. Building Department records also show that on January 24, 1994, a frame inspection was done of the project which resulted in the issuance of a yellow tag, denoting a failure, because of inadequate base anchoring. The actual inspection form reads, "Called in for 'building inspection' YTAG: 9:50AM Need verification of base fastening into slab, Recall J K." J K appears to be the initials of the inspector who did the inspection. On January 25, 1994, a second inspection was done and again the project was rejected because of the base fasteners. That inspection report reads, "9:30 AM Recheck same as previous insp." Both a yellow tag and a red tag mean that a code violation exists. The difference between the two is that while a red tag requires payment of a fee, a yellow tag does not. Notwithstanding the deficiency found in the first inspection was not corrected by Respondent or his company, no further action was taken until March 21, 1996, when Mr. Livesay filed a citation against the Respondent for "construction not to code" based on the work done at the subject address. A court date was set for April 5, 1996, but on March 23, 1996, Respondent appeared in court, pleaded guilty to the charge and paid a fine of $155.00. According to Mr. Livesay, normal procedure is for the contractor who has completed work which requires inspection to call in to have the inspection made. There is no indication here that this was not done. The problem here lies in the failure to make the necessary corrections disclosed by the inspection. Respondent, Bret Hill, admits that he is the individual whose license/certification was used to qualify Phoenix Aluminum, Inc., the company which did the work in issue. However, he denies having ever met or dealt with the Heimanns and this appears to be the case. Respondent's father, Willard Hill, indicates it is he who, as salesman for Ace/Phoenix, dealt with the Heimanns and pulled the permit for the required construction. He is also the individual who did the installation work and who called for the inspection when the work was completed. When the first inspection resulted in the issuance of a yellow tag, he called, the next day, for a second inspection. Mr. W. Hill insists that the first yellow tag resulted from the inspector's inability to determine the size of the lag bolt used to fasten the aluminum to the concrete base. He also asserts that the day after the first inspection he brought the appropriate bolts to the site for the inspector's review, but the inspector did not see them and issued a second yellow tag. Nonetheless, Hill asserts, the bolts used were proper for the job and the room built according to the specifications submitted to the building department by Phoenix. The prime contractor for the housing project was Geiger Enterprises, and it was Geiger who hired Phoenix to do the screening work. Both Ace Aluminum and Phoenix Aluminum were, Hill indicates, owned by a Mr. Brabham, with Bret Hill serving only as the qualifying licensee. Taking into account all the above, the ultimate finding is that the work was done by Phoenix Aluminum, Inc., based on a permit issued to Phoenix; it was found to be inadequate on an inspection called for by Phoenix, and the identified deficiency was not shown to be corrected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board enter a final order finding Respondent, Bret Hill, guilty of misconduct in the practice of contracting, and imposing an administrative fine of $250.00. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 COPIES FURNISHED: William J. Owens Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Belcher Road, Suite 102 Largo, Florida 24643-5116 Bret Hill 4904 Headland Hills Avenue Tampa, Florida 33625 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of December, 1996.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent has been licensed by the Petitioner as a roofing contractor, having been issued license number CCC 57995 by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was the qualifier for and did business as “Victor’s Roofing Co., Inc. of the Fla. Keys” (Victor’s Roofing). At all times relevant to this proceeding, Mr. Johnson was an owner of property located at 3214 Harriet Avenue, Key West, Florida (the subject property). Mr. Johnson lives in Hollywood, Florida. The subject property is rental property. Respondent and his company are not licensed to do drywall work in Key West, Florida, and they are not licensed with Petitioner other than as a roofing contractor. ROOFING WORK On November 3, 2008, Respondent, on behalf of Victor’s Roofing, entered into a contract with Mr. Johnson to re-roof the subject property. The proposal submitted by Respondent to Mr. Johnson contained Victor’s Roofing’s full corporate name; its office address in Marathon, Florida; two telephone numbers; and a fax number. The proposal was signed by Respondent. The proposal described in some detail the scope of the work. The price of the work was $7,000.00. Mr. Johnson accepted the proposal. Victor’s Roofing completed the roofing job to Mr. Johnson’s satisfaction. A leak developed after the roof was completed and Victor’s Roofing promptly repaired the leak to Mr. Johnson’s satisfaction. Petitioner’s Administrative Complaint alleged that Victor’s Roofing had failed to obtain a permit for the roofing job on the subject property and that it had failed to obtain required inspections. Those allegations were the result of an error by Petitioner’s investigator. Ms. Del Rio obtained records from the City of Key West Building Department for the wrong address. Instead of obtaining the permit history for the subject property (3214 Harriet Avenue) she requested and obtained the permit history for 3314 Harriet Avenue. Respondent applied for a permit for the roofing job on the subject property on November 11, 2006, and he obtained an inspection of the roof on November 27, 2007 [sic]. There was insufficient evidence to establish that any other permit or any other inspection was required for the roofing work. DRYWALL WORK After the roofing job had been completed (but before the inspection on November 27, 2007),2 Mr. Johnson informed Respondent by telephone that he needed someone to replace drywall that had been damaged during the period of time the subject property’s roof leaked. Mr. Johnson asked Respondent whether he knew anyone who could do the job. Respondent replied in the affirmative and told Mr. Johnson he would have someone contact him about doing the work.3 Thereafter, Respondent’s brother, Early Harris, contacted Mr. Johnson and the two of them verbally agreed on a price of $4,000. At the time Respondent put Early Harris in touch with Mr. Johnson, Respondent knew that Early Harris was not licensed to do drywall work in Key West. After giving Mr. Johnson’s telephone number to Early Harris, Respondent had no further involvement with the drywall work on the subject property. The price of the drywall work escalated to $9,000.00 after the work began. On November 25, 2006, Early Harris and Mr. Johnson signed a written proposal agreeing to the price of $9,000.00.4 This was a form proposal with the following: Victor’s Roofing Co., Inc. 2nd Generation Serving South Florida Licensed & Insured Marathon, Fla. The only telephone number on the proposal other than Mr. Johnson’s, was the number for Early Harris’ cell phone. The contract signed by Respondent on November 3, 2006, for the roofing work was on a different form and utilized a different font than the contract signed by Early Harris on November 25, 2006. The name of the corporation on the proposal for the drywall work, while similar to the name of Respondent’s company, was different. Early Harris has worked for Respondent’s business for several years, but there was no clear and convincing evidence that Early Harris had the authority to contract on behalf of Respondent’s business in November 2006. There was no evidence that Early Harris is a part owner of Respondent’s business or that he is an officer or director of Respondent’s business. Respondent testified, credibly, that Early Harris was not authorized to contract on behalf of Respondent’s business at the times relevant to this proceeding. There was no clear and convincing evidence to refute Respondent’s assertion that Earl Harris had no authority to contract on behalf of Respondent’s business. Early Harris did the drywall work on the subject property. Mr. Johnson paid Early Harris $9,000.00 for the drywall work. Mr. Johnson could not find the check(s) he wrote for the drywall work and, consequently the check(s) were unavailable as an exhibit. His recollection as to the name of the payee of the check(s) was not clear. Respondent testified, credibly, that neither he nor his business received any of the money for the drywall work. The drywall work Early Harris did was not to Mr. Johnson’s satisfaction. Mr. Johnson had to pay $600.00 to a drywall contractor for corrective work. In addition, Mr. Johnson had to pay $600.00 for a permit to have the repair work done.5 The total investigative costs of this case to Petitioner, excluding costs associated with any attorney’s time, was $191.16.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a final order finding Respondent not guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I, II, and III of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of January, 2010.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, John W. Hull, held certified building contractor license number CB CO28961 issued by petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Board). When the events herein occurred, respondent was qualifying agent for, and doing business as, John W. Hull Construction in Inverness, Florida. On September 15, 1990, respondent entered into a contract with Robert and Mary E. Griggs to construct a single-family residence at 7118 East Gospel Island Road, Inverness, Florida, for an estimated cost of $130,000. The contract called for respondent to be responsbile for all materials and work on the project and to build the residence in compliance with the county building code. In this regard, respondent pulled the permit for the job and was the supervising contractor. The project was completed around mid-May 1991 and a certificate of occupancy was issued by Citrus County (County). After the Griggs paid for the work in full, they took occupancy of the premises on May 17, 1991. On September 21, 1993, the Griggs noticed a water leak in the guest bathroom. Mary Griggs immediately contacted respondent and was told to call the subcontractor who installed the roof, Lloyd Vann. She did so and Vann came to the house the next morning and acknowledged the shingles were installed "incorrectly." He returned on October 4, 1993, and placed some tar under the shingles. While doing so, Griggs says that Vann "ripped a lot of the shingles." When the leaks persisted, including at least seven separate leaks during a single rain storm, Mary Griggs requested two other roofers to inspect her roof. They corroborated Vann's acknowledgment that the roof was "incorrectly" installed. On January 18, 1994, Griggs again contacted respondent and told him she needed a new roof since it violated building code requirements. He responded that there were no building code standards applicable to the roof. Mary Griggs persisted with her complaint and eventually arranged a meeting with a County building inspector, Henry Pann, respondent and Vann on September 30, 1994. However, Griggs was told not to speak at the meeting but rather to listen to the other participants. As a result of that meeting, Mary Griggs was contacted by respondent just after a heavy rain on October 3, 1994, to see if she still had any roof leaks. Not surprisingly, she responded in the affirmative and respondent visited the premises the next day. After concluding that the leaks were caused by water seeping through the sides of the chimney, respondent sealed and repainted the chimney area the following day. On November 15, 1994, the Griggs again experienced "heavy leaks" in their home during a heavy rain storm. After unsucessfully attempting to contact respondent, Mary Griggs finally reached Vann, who eventually replaced some shingles on November 23, 1994. However, as of the time of hearing in late July 1995, the Griggs still had water leaks in their home every time it rained, some of which were "worse" than before any repairs were made. Photographs received in evidence, and deposition testimony by inspector Pann, confirm numerous water stains throughout the house. Inspector Pann established that the roof violated the County's building code in at least four respects. First, the roof was in violation of section 103.2.4 by having inadequate fastener lengths, that is, respondent's agent had used staples instead of large head galvanized nails as required by the code. Thus, the fasteners could not penetrate through the shingle and into the lumber deck. Second, section 103.2.3 was contravened because the rakes and eaves were not cemented. Third, section 100 was violated because the drip edge was applied over the felt topping, a procedure which also contravened the manufacturer's specifications. Finally, the roof workmanship violated sections 100 and 100.1 by having an improper staple installation. The manufacturer of the asphalt shingles used on the Griggs' roof, Georgia-Pacific, has published a brochure containing easily understood instructions on how to install asphalt shingles. Even so, Vann ignored these plain instructions in a number of respects when he installed the Griggs' roof. For this reason, it can be reasonably inferred that respondent, through his agent Vann, deliberately violated local building codes. To correct the code violations and eliminate the leaks, and to make the roof comparable to that which the Griggs contracted for, it will be necessary for the Griggs to replace the roof, which will cost $7,020.00. In addition, it will cost the Griggs $500.00 to seal and paint the ceiling areas discolored by the leaking water. Respondent says that when the roof was installed in 1991, he followed applicable building codes "as much as they were being followed" at the time. While he defended his roofing subcontractor as being "a very reputable roofer," respondent nonetheless took the position that the roof was Vann's responsibility "to make good," and not his. He does not deny that the Griggs' roof is leaking, but says the leaks are "very small" and suggests that the Griggs' claims are exaggerated. At hearing, respondent suggested that the problem could be resolved by Mary Griggs calling Vann, who would "be there within a day or two" to make the repairs, a claim belied by the record. In any event, respondent is unwilling to replace the entire roof, a measure deemed to be necessary by the County inspector and other contractors. In light of respondent's continued failure to take appropriate measures to fix the roof, it is found that respondent is guilty of misconduct in the practice of contracting. Through a late-filed affidavit, petitioner established that it incurred $3,012.18 in costs in prosecuting this action. This amount was not challenged. By law, the Board is entitled to recover this amount from respondent should it prevail in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order finding respondent guilty of violating Sections 489.129(1)(d) and (m), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1990), imposing an administrative fine of $2,250.00, requiring that he pay restitution in the amount of $7,520.00, and requiring that he pay $3,012.18 for costs incurred by the Board in investigating and prosecuting this action. The fine, restitution and costs shall be repaid by a date certain to be established by the Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of September, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of September, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-0541 Petitioner: The proposed findings submitted by petitioner have generally been adopted in substance in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary L. Asbell, Esquire Dept. of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Mr. John W. Hull 95495 Berkshire Avenue Inverness, Florida 34452-9005 Richard Hickok, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Lynda L. Goodgame, Esquire Dept. of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in Count I of the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Respondent was licensed by Petitioner as a certified general contractor in the State of Florida and held license number CG- C016730. At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Respondent was the qualifying agent for Bilo Homes, Inc. (Bilo), a corporation engaged in Florida in the business of general contracting with its principal place of business in Miami, Florida. At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Mr. and Mrs. Donald Huston resided at 29843 S.W. 149th court, Leisure City, Florida. On February 24, 1988, the Hustons contracted with Bilo to build an addition to their house for the sum of $20,000 pursuant to plans and specifications that had been prepared by an architect. The Hustons' existing house was valued between $30,000-$40,000. The contract called for a one-story room addition to be built on a concrete slab with stucco exterior and sheet rock interior. The addition was to have a sliding glass door and was to be connected to the existing structure by a tie beam. The roof of the existing house was to be reshingled to match the shingles on the addition. The project also involved electrical work and plumbing work. The contract was signed on Wednesday, February 24, 1988, and work began on Friday, February 26, 1988. The contract did not specify a time for the completion of the project. The following draw schedule was agreed to by the Hustons and Bilo: 20% of the contract price upon the acceptance of the contract by the Hustons; 10% of the contract price upon the pouring of the concrete slab; 10% of the contract price upon ice completion of the tie beam: 20% of the contract price upon the drying in of the roof; 10% of the contract price upon the completion of the rough mechanical work; 10% of the contract price upon ice completion of the shingling of the roof; 10% of the contract price upon the installation of the plumbing fixtures;; 10% of the contract price (the balance) upon completion of the job. The Hustons made payments to Bilo in the total amount of $14,000.00. These payments were broken down as follows: $4,000.00 paid on February 24, 1988, upon acceptance of the contract; $2,000.00 paid on March 22, 1988, upon the pouring of the concrete slab; $2,000.00 paid on April 5, 1988, upon the completion of the tie beam; $4,000.00 paid on April 18, 1988, upon the drying in of the roof; and $2,000.00 paid on June 25, 1988, upon the completion of the shingling of the roof. Before June 25, 1988, Respondent had asked the Hustons for the draw due upon completion of the rough mechanical work in addition to the draw due upon completion of the shingling. The Hustons refused to pay both draws because they were dissatisfied with the quality of Bilo's work. The Hustons engaged the services of a lawyer and, on June 29, 1988, presented Respondent with a list of items they wanted corrected before paying the draw for the rough mechanical work. Respondent and the Hustons disagreed as to when the items on the list should be corrected. Respondent contended that the items could have been corrected as part of the punch list prior to the final payment. The Hustons contended that the items should be corrected before Respondent received any further draws. This dispute is resolved by finding that while several of the items on the list could have been corrected as part of the final punch list, there were items on the list that should have been corrected by Respondent before he proceeded. Considering the very poor quality of work that went into this job, the Hustons were justified in their demand that Respondent make these corrections before receiving an additional draw. Respondent contends that the Hustons did not pay the draw for the rough mechanical work because they ran out of money. This contention is rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. After the Hustons presented Respondent with the list and refused to pay the draw for the rough mechanical work, Bilo stopped work on the project. Bilo performed no work on the project after June 29, 1988. Prior to the work stoppage, Respondent hired K & H Plumbing as the subcontractors to the plumbing work on the Huston job. K & H Plumbing's work failed to pass a Metro Dade County tub and water pipe inspection because the work did not meet the South Florida Building Code. K & H never completed its work on the Huston addition and no final inspection of its work was approved. K & H Plumbing filed suit against the Hustons for the unpaid portion of their contract with Bilo. In addition, K & H Plumbing failed to properly replace wood decking which it had pulled up during the course of its work on the Huston job. Respondent had received funds which1 should have been used to pay K & H. Prior to the work stoppage, Respondent hired Tom Mentelos to perform the electrical subcontracting work on the Huston addition. The work performed, by Mentelos was substandard. His work failed to pass inspection by the Metro Dade County Building and Zoning Department on six different occasions. In addition to this substandard work, one of Mentelos' employees cracked the Huston's kitchen ceiling while working in the attic over the existing portion of the house. This crack was never corrected by Mentelos or by Bilo. Mentelos never completed his work on the Huston addition, although he was never fired by the Hustons. Mentelos filed a claim of lien against the Hustons in he amount of $2,000.00. The first claim of lien was released and Mentelos filed a second claim of lien against the Hustons in the amount of $2,623.00. Respondent had received funds which should have been used to pay Mentelos. Respondent obtained the roofing permit to build the new roof on the Huston addition and to reroof the existing roof. The roofing work involved a process commonly referred to as "hot mopping", a process which requires the services of a licensed roofing contractor. Respondent exceeded the scope of his licensure by engaging in hot mopping. Bilo's employees punched two unnecessary vent pipes through the roof and placed a flat piece of PVC material around the vent holes to keep the, roof from leaking. This is an improper and unacceptable construction practice. Bilo's employees damaged the existing screen porch while working on the roof. The metal flashing which connected the existing roof to the aluminum screen porch was taken off but was never replaced. As a result, the screen porch leaked, a problem that had not been corrected as of the time of the final hearing. While Bilo's employees were working on the roof of the existing structure, a rainstorm occurred which resulted in water stains to the ceiling of the Hustons' main structure. The workmen were not supervised by Respondent and were unprepared for the rain. Other than the water stains, no damage was done to the ceiling. To repair the ceiling stains would require a chemical coating, followed by repainting of the ceiling. The cost of the repair would be approximately $75.00. Bilo engaged in poor construction practice in constructing the exterior wall by facing the poorer grade side of the exterior plywood toward the outside as opposed to inside. The better construction practice is to place the poorer grade side toward the inside where it will not be exposed to view. There is a gap in the area where the metal flashing comes down the exterior side of the end gable and meets the top of the roof. In the work performed by Bilo, the piece of sheathing was above the bottom of the sill plate which caused a gap from one inch to five inches over a distance between eight and ten feet. This gap is a source of potential leaks. Bilo attempted to cover the v-notch in the area of the gag with tar pitch in an attempt to correct this deficiency. Both the gap and the attempted repair are unacceptable construction practices. Bilo had not cut vents in the soffits at the time it stopped work on the project. Without vent holes in the soffits, the job would have not passed inspection. Bilo could have, at little expense, cut the soffit vents at a later point in the job. The end member of the frame for the partition wall between the laundry room and the masonry wall is not pressure- treated wood. The South Florida Building Code requires that the wood used for the end member of such construction be pressure treated or that there be a barrier between the end member and the adjoining wall. Here, Bilo failed to exercise either acceptable option, and, consequently performed work that failed to comport with acceptable construction practices and did not meet code. The manner in which Bilo supported the timber girder that supports the roof trusses fails to meet code because the tie beam, into which this girder is pocketed for support, is improperly supported. A hole was knocked in the cement block wall that supported the tie beam when a plumbing vent was redirected. As a result of this hole, the tie beam rests on only approximately two inches of concrete, which is inadequate to support the tie beam and the timber girder. This work fails to comport with acceptable construction practices. Bilo failed to brace the roof trusses as required by the plans and specifications of the architect. This is an unacceptable construction practiced. Bilo cut into the roof truss without authority from the truss manufacturer or from a qualified engineer. Cutting into a truss can impair its structural integrity and is a violation of code. Respondent maintained at hearing that he would have been able to get approval from the truss manufacturer for the modification of the truss caused by the cut. Respondent did not have such approval as of the time of the final hearing, and there was no evidence, other than his unilateral expectation, to support this contention. The facia board on the eaves did not join properly because Bilo's workmen did not take the time to properly cut the boards with the aid of a square. Although this is a matter that could be corrected for approximately $25.00, this work, along with the other deficiencies detailed herein, demonstrates the substandard work that went into this project and establishes that Bilo failed to provide its workmen adequate supervision or adequate training. At hearing, there was a dispute as to how much time Respondent personally spent at the Huston job site. This conflict is resolved by finding that Respondent was personally on the job site for at least 30 minutes on days when work was progressing. When major items were being performed on the job, he spent more time on the job site. When minor work was being done, Respondent did not go to the job site on a daily basis. Regardless of the number of minutes or hours that Respondent spent on the job site, the conclusion is inescapable that Respondent failed to properly supervise his workmen in light of the low level of skill the workmen exhibited throughout the job. Respondent had the responsibility as the general contractor to properly supervise his workmen and his subcontractors. He failed to perform that responsibility. As of the final hearing, the Huston addition remained uncompleted. At the time of the work stoppage, it would have cost the Hustons more than $6,600 to complete the job, the difference between the contract price and the amount that the Hustons had paid Respondent. The evidence was clear that the Hustons had incurred damages as a result of their dealings with Respondent. The amount of those damages were not established with any degree of certainty. On or about July 15, 1988, Respondent filed a claim of lien against the Hustons' property claiming that Bilo was owed $8,350 for the work that had been done. Respondent has been a certified general contractor for fifteen years and has been certified as a general contractor in the State of Florida since 1980. Respondent's licensure had not been disciplined prior to the filing of the Administrative Complaint in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of having violated the provisions of Section 489.129(1)(h), (j), and (m), Florida Statutes, which imposes administrative fines in the amount of total amount of $5,000 for such violations, and which suspends his licensure as a general contractor for a period of six months. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-0765 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: The proposed findings in Section VI (A) are adopted in material part except to the extent that the proposed findings are subordinate to the findings made. (Section VI (A) pertains to facts established through Respondent's failure to respond to Request for Admissions.) The proposed findings in paragraphs 1 2, 3, 4, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, and 24 are adopted in material part. The proposed findings in paragraphs 5 - 10 are adopted in material part except to the extent that the proposed findings are subordinate to the findings made or are unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of paragraphs 11, 19, and 25 are adopted in material part except to the extent that the proposed findings are unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of paragraph 12, 26, and 27 are rejected to the extent that the proposed findings are conclusions of law. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 13 and 20 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made or as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent: The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 13, 16, 18, 19, 27, and 30 are adopted in material part. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 5, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, and 32, are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 9 and 11 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 10 are adopted in part and are rejected in part as being contrary to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 12, 14, 33, 35, and 37 are rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 15 are adopted in part and are rejected in part as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 24 are adopted in part and are rejected in part as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 34 are rejected as being the recitation of testimony. COPIES FURNISHED: regory A. Victor, Esquire 3225 Aviation Avenue Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33133 Robert S. Cohen, Esquire Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Respondent is guilty of misconduct, as is more Particularly alleged in an Administrative Complaint dated November 26, 1986, and which is more particularly set forth hereinafter in detail, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At times material hereto, Respondent was licensed as a professional engineer, having been issued License No. PE0014862. Philip Clark contracted with Gilbert Simm, the owner of Quality Foods, Inc., to prepare architectural plans depicting the interior finishing of the food processing area to be contained in an existing warehouse owned by Simm. Pursuant to his contract with Simm, Clark hired Respondent to prepare the mechanical-design portion of the plans. Respondent prepared said mechanical-design plans consisting of sheet M- 1 and affixed his seal and name thereto. Bernard Amangual, general contractor, applied for a building permit to commence construction of the food processing area based on the plans submitted by Respondent. (Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 3) The building permit was rejected by the Metropolitan Dade Building Department on January 27, 1986. John Ariton, mechanical plans examiner for Dade County, prepared a mechanical processing comment sheet after reviewing Respondent's drawings which reflected several mechanical-design elements depicted by Respondent which failed to comply with the South Florida Building Code. Ariton further completed a design criteria sheet upon review of Respondent's plans. (Petitioner's Exhibits 4 and 5) Dade County enforces the South Florida Building Code, which has adopted the requirements and standards of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). Petitioner retained the services of Berton Hufsey, received as an expert herein in the field of mechanical engineering, to examine Respondent's plans prior to the hearing and to file a report which was done contemporaneous with said examination outlining noted deficiencies in Respondent's design, several of which were checked on the Building Department's mechanical processing comment sheet. Among denoted deficiencies, Respondent's plans failed to provide for sufficient exhaust air for the hood as the capacity of the exhaust air shown on the mechanical plans was 7200 cfm and the Code requirement is 7500 cfm. Respondent failed to recite the dimensions of the cooking equipment under the hood on the mechanical drawing. Respondent only provided for one exhaust tap in the 15 foot hood design in violation of the South Florida Building Code, which required that there be one tap for every eight (8) feet. Respondent failed to note in his plans the description or indication of the wall adjacent to the hood, or of the roof above the hood, to indicate it was either of combustible material or whether or not the 18-inch required clearance had been satisfied. Respondent failed to provide any reference to the size of sheet metal ductwork that goes from the hood to the exhaust fan, which is in violation of the South Florida Building Code. When the plans were submitted by Respondent and were presented to the Building Department, there were no energy calculations made. The automatic extinguisher system shown on the mechanical plans as submitted by Respondent did not provide for an automatic means to ensure the shutdown of fuel or power upon system activation. The gas riser did not indicate an automatic shut-off valve to stop the flow of gas in the event of fire as is required by the South Florida Building Code. An engineer who affixes his seal and name to plans thereby indicates that the plans are complete and ready for submission. An engineer is required to date all plans bearing his seal and signature. Respondent acknowledges that he provided the wrong hood size in the mechanical drawings. He also acknowledged that the fire extinguisher system usually provides for a shut-off valve in the mechanical drawings, which was not provided. Aside therefrom, Respondent considered the other deficiencies noted above were merely technical deficiencies which he should have been afforded an opportunity to complete. In this regard, Respondent contends that the engineer, Philip Clark, did not give him the details to make the necessary energy calculations or details about various equipment items, and therefore, it was impossible for him to make the necessary calculations and provide the required details.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: Respondent pay an administrative fine of $1,000. Respondent's license be placed on probation for a period of six (6) months, during which time Respondent will be required to complete a study guide in a course in professionalism and ethics as required by Petitioner. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of July, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of July, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0034 Respondent's memoranda is in the form of a summary of the testimony which was considered by me in preparation of the Recommended Order. However, the following responses are provided to the summation given by Respondent. Item 3 Rejected as irrelevant to a determination of the issues posed. Items 4 and 5: Rejected based on other credible evidence indicating that the drawing does not contain the requisite sign, seal and date as is required by statute and rules and that there were numerous deficiencies as referred to by expert witness Berton Hufsey. Rulings on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: FOF 23 Rejected as argument or a conclusion. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Mr. Paul A. Poliquin 324 West Rivo Alto Drive Miami, Florida 33139 Honorable Van B. Poole Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Allen R. Smith, Jr. Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Based upon the stipulated facts, only one issue, a legal one, must be resolved. The issue is whether Section 489.111(4)(c), Florida Statutes, is properly applied by the Board which interprets this section to require a minimum of four years of experience as a certified contractor. Having considered the statute and the Board's position in applying the interpretation above, it is concluded that the Board's interpretation is erroneous.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Margaret K. Roberts, was licensed as a Certified Building Contractor October 19, 1984. Petitioner filed an application to take the State Certified General Contractor's Examination on or about December 19, 1984. At the time Petitioner applied to take the Certified General Contractor's Examination, she held Certified Building Contractor's License No. CB C031970 and she had four years of proven experience in the Certified Building Contractor's field, although she had only been certified as a building contractor since October 19, 1984. One may obtain experience in an area of contracting without being certified. Petitioner is not qualified by virtue of holding a baccalaureate degree or experience as a residential contractor. Petitioner was not certified as a building contractor for four years prior to applying for the general contractor's examination. Petitioner's only basis of claimed eligibility to take the General Contractor's Examination is Section 489.111(4)(c), Florida Statutes. The Respondent denied the Petitioner's application to take the certification examination because of insufficient time as a certified building contractor in accordance with Florida Statutes 489.111(4)(c). Other than the issue of requisite experience as a certified contractor, Petitioner meets all other statutes and Board Rules regarding eligibility for the Certified General Contractor's Examination.
Recommendation Based upon the stipulated facts and the conclusions of law, it is recommended that Section 489.111(4)(c), Florida Statutes, be interpreted to include qualifying service in a non-certified capacity and that Petitioner's application to take the building contractor's examination be approved. DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of March, 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of March, 1986 COPIES FURNISHED: James Linnan Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board P.O. Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Maxwell G. Battle, Esquire 8204-A West Waters Avenue Suite 350 Tampa, Florida 33615 Arden Siegendorf, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD MARGARET K. ROBERTS, License No. CB-C031970 Petitioner, DOAH CASE NO. 85-2240 DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Frank H. Suesz is a licensed general contractor having been issued certificate number CG C020463. On July 21, 1981, the Respondent Suesz submitted an application to the Petitioner Department of Professional Regulation to take the certified contractors' examination as a general contractor. On the application, the Respondent Suesz stated that he had four (4) years of construction experience, one (1) year of on-the-job-supervisory experience, and some experience in the construction of buildings in excess of three(3) stories in height. The Respondent's work experience' was verified by Ethel C. Douglas, his mother-in-law and a building owner. Douglas' verification on the Respondent's application was notarized. The experience claimed by the Respondent on his application involved his prior position with Steel Systems Construction Company, a seller and erector of pre-engineered metal buildings. Steel Systems is owned by Richard Spinnenweber, who is also the Respondent's cousin and the complainant in this case. Steel Systems holds the franchise for American Steel Buildings while the Respondent's company, ABCO Construction, Inc., has acquired the franchise for Pre-Engineered Steel Buildings. Since the Respondent's resignation from Steel Systems, his relationship with his cousin has been anything but cordial. The Respondent and Spinnenweber have engaged in litigation concerning the termination of their former relationship and are now active business competitors through their respective companies. 1/ The Respondent's company sells and erects pre-engineered, prefabricated steel buildings that are built in a factory, shipped to the job site and erected. One witness for the Petitioner analogized the construction of these buildings to "erector sets". (See Tr. at 43) Since being certified in 1981, the Respondent's company, ABCO Construction, Inc. has successfully completed approximately 40 construction projects including a 45,000 foot roof for Pan Am at Miami International Airport, a 10,000 square foot marina warehouse in Key Largo, and has worked for the U.S. Customs Service and the Air Force. No evidence was presented that any of the Respondent's jobs completed since he became certified, were substandard or present a threat to the public health, safety and welfare. Permits were pulled on these projects and building inspections were passed when required. Prior to moving to Florida, the Respondent Suesz had varied construction experience which including supervising the construction of building additions, a shipping storage warehouse and a factory for Beckley Perforating Company, which is headquartered in Garwood, New Jersey. This testimony is corroborated by a letter dated May 13, 1982, from Frank P. Marano, President of Beckley, which also noted the Respondent's ". . .unusual competency in all areas of responsibility as to construction, maintenance and expansion." [See Petitioner's Exhibit 3(x).] Additionally, the Respondent has some construction experience in excess of three stories, which dates from his work with his father on apartment buildings located out of state. The extent of the Respondent's experience which dates from the 1940s, is set forth in detail in Respondent's Exhibit 2. Although his position at Steel Systems was primarily sales, the Respondent Suesz also worked in the field when necessary. 2/ While employed by Steel Systems, the Respondent supervised construction of two large dock roofs in 1978 and 1979, plus three buildings in 1980 and 1981 for the Homestead Tomato Packing Company, Inc. By letter dated May 13, 1982, Rosario Strano, company owner, commended the Respondent for his work and stated that he intended ". . .to negotiate with him for all future requirements for buildings, dock roofs, etc." [Petitioner's Exhibit 3(y).] In early 1989, the Respondent Suesz built an addition to the Hialeah factory of Brice-Southern, Inc. His supervision of the project included pouring and finishing the floor slab. Philip H. Brice recommended the Respondent's work via letter dated May 13, 1982, and stated ". . .that he would give him the opportunity to do our future requirements." Petitioner's Exhibit 3(z).] According to Gerald Antel, Trustee, Sunshine Skateway, the Respondent supervised the construction of a $250,000 roller rink. [Petitioner's Exhibit 3(aa).] Finally, in late 1980 and 1981, the Respondent supervised construction of a 16,800 square foot building for Woal Wholesale Plumbing Supply, Inc. His work on this project was observed and recommended by Randy S. Woal. [Petitioner's Exhibit 3(bb).]
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent Frank H. Suesz, be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of August, 1983.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, David R. Oldham, is a registered architect in the State of Florida, holding license no. 5786. The original date of his registration is August 31, 1972. The Respondent's license is presently in a probationary status. He is a self-employed architect. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the practice and the practice standards of architecture and architects in Florida, pursuant to Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 481, Florida Statutes. COUNTS I & II Pursuant to a written contract entered into July 10, 1980, and signed on July 14, 1980, the Respondent agreed to provide architectural services to one "William D. Buck or "Bill Buck" for additions and alterations to his automobile dealership known as Bill Buck Chevrolet, Inc., located at 2324 South Tamiami Trail, Venice, Florida. The contract provided for the preparation of various plans and construction documents preparatory to construction of a new service building of approximately 5,000 square feet area, with additions and alterations to the existing office area of approximately 800 square feet, and the relocation of an existing inspection facility to provide for two entrance and exit lanes to automotive service-bays. The contract called for two service stalls to be depicted in each of four service-bays in the new building for a total of eight service stalls. A roof was to span across the driveway connecting the existing structure with the new service building to be constructed pursuant to the plans. The contract required Respondent to prepare a site plan, floor plans, elevations and necessary sections, details and schedules in order to permit the owner, Bill Buck, to invite bids and construct the project. The Respondent undertook to provide a set of plans from which he and his contractor could build the entire project. The Respondent prepared the plans for Mr. Buck and they were given to contractor David Malcolmson. Mr. Malcolmson suggested that the building be changed from a metal building to a concrete block structure because it could be built cheaper and faster. Mr. Buck agreed to that change and the Respondent made changes to his drawings to indicate that the type of construction had shifted from metal to masonry. The new building was ultimately constructed as a single story structure consisting of a poured concrete monolithic floor slab- footing, with filled masonry concrete block walls and a prestressed concrete slab roof. The Respondent prepared and issued a nine sheet set of plans, dated December 22, 1980, for the additions and alterations to the Chevrolet dealership. All nine sheets in this set of plans were signed and sealed by Respondent and ultimately filed with the Sarasota County Building Department. These plans are known hereinafter as the "permit set." On December 23, 1980, the contractor applied for a building permit, and on January 12, 1981, the building department issued the permit authorizing construction in accordance with the permit set of plans, signed, sealed and prepared by Respondent. The permit set of plans contained the entire specifications for the project, and the entire specifications filed with that building department. During construction, Mr. Buck himself, became concerned about the integrity of the foundation of the building. He questioned his contractor, Mr. Malcolmson, about the strength of the foundation since he knew that the type of construction had changed from metal to the prestressed concrete and concrete block structure having a substantially greater weight. At or near the completion of the construction, various cracks were observed in the walls and floors which caused a great deal of concern to Mr. Buck. He requested an inspection from the building department, and the building inspector became concerned upon seeing the cracks and asked the contractor to have an expert investigate and determine whether a serious structural problem existed. Thus, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the building department, the contractor hired Ardaman and Associates, Inc. (Ardaman), a firm of consulting engineers, to test the foundation. On June 1, 1981, Ardaman inspected the wall and foundation system of the new building and issued a report to the contractor in the form of a letter. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 16) Ardaman had discovered a crack in the floor slab running parallel to the north wall about three feet away from that wall extending the entire length of the building. The crack was found by Ardaman to be a "stress-relief" crack caused by settlement of the monolithic foundation. The foundation was loaded and tension stress was transmitted to the top of the slab causing a tension failure (crack) in the concrete slab. Ardaman's test revealed that the soil under the wall and foundation had a bearing capacity of 3,000 pounds per square foot. The plans themselves had envisioned a 2,000 pound per square foot allowable soilbearing load. Indeed, the soil pressure compression was ultimately 5,285 pounds per square foot actual load from the weight of the building. Ardaman additionally noted two vertical cracks in that wall attributed to temperature changes. Ardaman thus recommended packing concrete under the existing foundation to prevent undermining or eroding of the soil under the foundation, since the foundation was actually above grade. The existing foundation supporting the north wall was only a half-inch from the adjacent property line, and was above the adjacent grade by 3 to 12 inches. This is a potentially serious condition since it allows erosion of the soil under the foundation and undermining and a resulting collapse of the wall could occur. The building official from the county recommended that the contractor excavate and then backfill the excavation under the foundation with concrete to bring the lower edge of the footing down below grade level to take care of possible erosion problems. Erosion could remove some of the bearing soil from under the foundation. With that recommendation, on July 14, 1981, the building department issued a certificate of occupancy. On August 26, 1981, at the request of the building contractor, Ardaman made an additional inspection of the facility. On August 27, Ardaman informed the contractor and the building department that no new conditions were observed at the site, but described for the first time the rotation of the footing which could cause concomitant rotation of the wall (leaning). Ardaman measured the movement of the foundation system and found that the footing had rotated or tilted approximately three-fourths of an inch to one inch at the point of the wall's contact with the footing. This could cause rotation of the wall which would decrease the bearing area of the prestressed roof slabs or beams bearing and supported by the top of the wall. On November 4, 1981, the building department notified the contractor of its concern that the problem with the service building had not yet been resolved. The building department was concerned that because of footing or wall rotation, a loss of roof slab bearing area might have occurred and that necessary correction should be made. Because these corrections had not yet been made, the building department recommended that occupancy be discontinued until corrections could be made to the structure. On December 15, Ardaman urged the contractor to complete the following items of remedial work: To underpin portions of the foundation, originally constructed below grade, to increase the safety factor and to comply with the Southern Standard Building Code minimum cover requirement; To retain a professional engineer to design an auxiliary bearing system that would prohibit significant wall rotation, as the wall had already rotated .085 inches in 8.0 feet; and To fill floor cracks and wall cracks. Ardaman's recommendations and findings of deficiencies regarding the structure were put in a letter filed with the building department and entered into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 19, corroborated by testimony of the building official, Mr. Light. It was thus established that the design of the addition to Bill Buck Chevrolet, Inc., did not comply with appropriate building code requirements related to foundation and upgrade. On approximately February 4, 1982, the attorney for Bill Buck retained Mr. William Snell, P.E., a consulting engineer. Mr. Snell was retained to review the project to determine if serious problems existed in the design or construction. Vertical cracks were observed in the north wall on both the inside and outside surfaces. Several feet inside the building a long crack parallel to the north wall had developed in the four-inch concrete floor slab. By this time, Ardaman's recommendation to pack concrete under the north footing to prevent erosion, had already been performed. The building department still had reservations about the integrity of the building. Recent measurements for instance had revealed that the north wall was leaning three-eighths of an inch north at the ceiling line. Mr. Snell reviewed a blueprint copy of Respondent's permit set of plans. This permit set of plans contains nine sheets (eight architectural and structural sheets and one electrical sheet). They contained no topographic survey and no building elevations are depicted. Mr. Snell's written opinions regarding the project are contained in his letter of February 15, 1982, in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 20 and his letter of February 17, 1982, to the building official, in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 21. Additionally, Mr. Snell was accepted and testified as an expert witness in structural engineering at the hearing. Mr. Snell described the project as consisting of the new service building which abuts the adjacent common property line on the west side of the property on which the building was built. The west wall of the service building is one-half inch from that property line. The building contains a series of service-bays containing a total of eight maintenance stalls next to that common property line. The building also has waiting rooms and office space. Between the original existing Bill Buck Chevrolet building and the new service building addition is a drive-through structure for cars which consists of a paved drive covered by a roof made of prestressed concrete "double-t's". One of the problems extant on the face of the plans is that they contain a number of details left over from the original steel building design before it was decided to change to a masonry structure. Changing from the steel to masonry construction added considerable weight to the structure because a precast concrete roof deck is considerably heavier than a metal building roof deck as are masonry walls compared to sheet steel walls and steel columns, etc. The change from steel to masonry as the construction mode is significant in at least two ways: First, the change created confusion in understanding tie plans. Some steel details in the plans have been voided yet others are still on the plans creating an apparent inconsistency. For instance, Sheet 2 shows steel columns and overhead framing lines, "H sections" and pipe columns, all steel components used for metal building construction. Sheet 8 still shows some walls as "non- block." Other sheets, however, such as Sheets 4 and 5, indicate only masonry for the walls. Sheet 8 indicates some steel details explicitly voided, yet others, as on Sheet 2, are only partially erased so that "ghost images" or vestiges of the "steel plan" remain. Further confusion is shown by the inconsistency between the "ghost images" on Sheets 2 and 8 which show the "H" columns and pipe columns on Sheet 2 reversed on Sheet 8. The Respondent obviously was not conscious of the impact of the change from the steel to masonry mode throughout the set of drawings. Secondly, the change from steel to masonry is significant because the additional weight was not adequately provided for structurally. Some of the structural supports for a steel building were erased, yet the remaining thickened edge floor slab was not redesigned to provide an adequate foundation for masonry. In essence, the foundation is inadequate with the great weight of the masonry construction placed on top of it. In reality, the mere thickened edge on the floor slab does not constitute an adequate footing or foundation, based on Mr. Snell's analysis of the downward loads on the foundation. The footings were eccentrically loaded by being on the edge of the foundation instead of centered. The forces exceed both the 2,000 pounds per square foot allowable soil bearing pressure that is depicted on Sheet 8 of the plans, and the 3,000 pounds per square foot that the Ardaman firm reports as acceptable soil pressure. The soil pressure compression found by Mr. Snell was 5,285 pounds per square foot. Thus, the footings were shown to be considerably overloaded, causing the thin four-inch floor slab to crack, and then to rotate, carrying the wall in rotation with it when soil eroded out from underneath it due to the footing being installed originally above grade level. The building was dangerously overstressed as designed, and should have been dismantled or strengthened by placing new footings and piers under supporting steel beams to take the roof load off the overloaded, common property line wall. Additionally, the plans depicted no "book" specifications and made no note of the proper concrete strength to be used nor the degree of compaction of soil required. They depicted no design loads for the roof, floor, nor for wind. No roof framing plans were provided and the Respondent did not adequately depict the roof span over the driveway and failed to exercise due care in drafting the roof span. The Respondent never developed a "so-called Section E-E" referred to on Sheet 3 of the plans. Nowhere in the plans were any support beams over the service stall doors shown and no reinforcement for this area was depicted. No reinforcement was specified for the concrete block wall piers between the service stall doors of the building. The east wall of the structure with its series of wall piers between the service-bay doors is actually more severely loaded than the west side of the building where the cracking occurred. The cracking occurred on the west side, however, because erosion of soil from under the foundation aggravated the problem of excessive load on the foundation. The load on the east wall of the structure, however, is 29,000 pounds per square foot for the wall piers, which also are merely sitting on the thickened slab, as is the west wall. Additionally, the Respondent failed to require a topographic survey and failed to make a grading and drainage plan for the site. The property is characterized by a downward gradient towards the west wall, and therefore, if there had been a topographic survey, the Respondent could have designed a "stepped-down" foundation to keep the foundations below grade. The Respondent, however, failed to do this, which resulted in the foundation for the west wall being above grade with the resulting erosion problems. Additionally, no crack control or expansion joints were provided for in the plans for the wall where Ardaman Engineering found the temperature cracks. After examining the plans and the building, Mr. Snell concluded that the plans were seriously deficient and that the building, as evidenced by cracking and exceptional deflection of structural members, was in a failing condition, with a total collapse being conceivable. Mr. Snell filed a complaint with the Petitioner and informed the building department on February 23, 1982. On that date, on the basis of Mr. Snell's report, the building officials suspended the certificate of occupancy. On that date the building official requested that the Respondent submit complete structural calculations, to which the Respondent never replied. After the certificate of occupancy was suspended, Mr. Snell prepared drawings for structural repairs and another contractor was retained to obtain a repair permit for the building. Thus the project was ultimately structurally corrected, and on June 14, 1982, the building department reinstated the certificate of occupancy. The Respondent never asked for any site information, topographical or otherwise from the owner, Mr. Buck, and the contractor, Mr. Malcolmson, had to establish the floor elevation for the new building. The Respondent contends that he issued the permit drawings without the topographical and grade information because Mr. Buck indicated that an engineer would separately furnish all required site information. The fact remains, however, that the Respondent allowed the drawings to be issued from his office without the grade and topographical information, thus signing, sealing and submitting an incomplete set of plans to his client. Mr. David Titsch is a registered architect and was accepted as an expert witness in the field of architecture on behalf of Petitioner. He established that it is customary for an architect to require an owner to have a topographic survey performed. The architect's responsibility is to see that the survey is performed so that he may use that information to design the project and adequately prepare drawings. If an architect requests his client to provide such information and the client or owner fails to do so, the architect should proceed no further. It is a departure from reasonable and prudent architectural practice to allow drawings to be signed, sealed and issued as final plans from an architect's office which do not depict grade information. It is particularly important to show grade information for adjacent property when proposing an addition to a structure that will abut on a property line, as in the instant situation. In addition to the failure to depict site grade, the Respondent failed to illustrate floor elevations, simply drawing a floor slab at an undetermined elevation which put the burden on the contractor to estimate where to put the floor of the building. Serious loading problems on the footing along the west property line were demonstrated based upon Mr. Titsch's calculations, as well. It is a design error to put a ten-inch deep "floating slab" foundation along a property line. This type design is insufficient because it creates a hazard along the property line where there could be erosion of the supporting soil and where the architect, contractor and the owner cannot control what use the adjacent property owner might make of his property, which could have the effect of undermining the slab-type foundation. In fact, the slab was constructed above grade and the monolithic slab footing became exposed when a washout occurred on the adjacent property. Additionally, the span over the driveway was excessive and structural support for the roof slab (24-inch "double T" prestressed concrete members) was inadequate. The foundation and vertical structural support was simply not designed to carry that load, and the span of the roof over the driveway area was bordering on failure. No beams were depicted supporting the wall and roof sections over the garage door openings. Thus, the contractor was left to guess, once again, as to how to support the building above these openings. In light of these deficiencies, Mr. Titsch opined that the plans depart from acceptable principles of professional architectural practice and could not result in a sound, safe building. Mr. Robert Dykes, AIA, testified as an architectural expert for Petitioner. Mr. Dykes reviewed the permit set of plans and testified concerning his expert opinion regarding the deficiencies appearing on the face of the plans. Thus, it was established, as to Sheet 1, the site plan, that the floor paving and site heights are not indicated, the water, sewer, electric and phone services are not shown, and the drainage for storm water is not indicated. The present and proposed buildings are poorly dimensioned. On Sheet 2 the thickness of walls and vertical reinforcing are not shown. The east-west dimensions do not correctly "add up." On the floor plan depicted on Sheet 3, the vertical structural steel is not shown in the garage stall areas. On Sheet 4, the foundation, a small rectangle is depicted, assumed to be the location of vertical reinforcing steel, but it is not shown in other floor plan depictions, rendering the various sheets inconsistent. Footing requirements for the front wall of the stalls are not depicted. On Sheet 5, the front elevations and southwest elevations of the main office area are not clear as to the span condition at the driveway between both buildings (roof span), nor is the vertical height of the front elevation and exterior building material illustrated. On Sheet 6 the type of concrete block to be used is not clearly indicated, and once again, solid rectangular squares are shown on this sheet to possibly indicate vertical reinforcing, but the exact meaning of these depicted squares was not described and they are not consistent with the foundation plan. Structural reinforcing requirements between and over the overhead doors are not indicated. On Sheet 7 the wall sections are not clear as to the sizes of the concrete beams, the reinforcing requirements and the "double-T" members and flat slab details. The wall sections are further shown to be inadequately drawn because they do not depict connection details between the flat slab and the steel or concrete beams. As to Sheet 8, no requirements for vertical reinforcement are shown and the original plans drawn for a metal building application have not been sufficiently modified to depict an adequate, safely- supported, precast concrete roof system. Finally, Sheet 9 regarding the electrical plan, does not provide any concrete information regarding the type of light fixtures, wattage, electrical circuits, air conditioning voltage or panel board locations. Mr. Dykes opined that the building failed structurally and was unsafe as designed and built. COUNT III On July 26, 1982, the Respondent signed a stipulation in DOAH Case No. 83-809, agreeing to pay a sum of money to former clients, Herman Chait and Ann R. Chait. The sum of $1,500, plus $26.55 costs, represents a judgment entered against the Respondent in favor of the Chaits by the County Court in and for Sarasota County. Pursuant to the terms of the stipulation, the Respondent was to pay that amount in equal monthly installments over a period of 15 months, during which time the Respondent would be placed on probation by the Board of Architecture until the amount was paid in full. On September 28, 1982, the Board of Architecture entered a Final Order, incorporating in its entirety the stipulation signed by the Respondent. The final payment of the amount referred was due on December 28, 1982. On February 22, 1984, an order finding probable cause was entered by the Secretary of the Department of Professional Regulation for the Respondent's violation of the stipulation. At the instant proceeding the Respondent admitted that he had signed the stipulation, that he had not paid the amount, and that the time limit for payment had expired. The Respondent also admitted receiving two letters from Petitioner's counsel as well as a telephone call reminding him of his obligation to pay the Chaits and the possibility of automatic suspension of his license for failure to pay. His sole defense is that his personal and financial circumstances did not permit him to meet that obligation, although he acknowledges that it is due and he intends to eventually pay it.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore
